Pure joy for only $6.99?

This is another of the occasional “this funny [whatever] was sent to me by a cow-orker, so I’m posting it” posts I put up.

slingshot-monkey-title.gif

Get a screaming, flying, fake (as opposed to living), fuzzy slingshot monkey for only $6.99 (plus shipping, of course, and maybe tax, depending on where you live). Utterly useless and stupid, but funny enough for me to want one. At $6.99, I thought about just ordering one, but I’m trying to stop the impulsive buying garbage I’ve done too often in the past.

What do you get when you cross a slingshot with a monkey?

Well, if it’s a real monkey, you probably get a dead monkey. But if it’s a toy monkey, you get this amazing new invention.

[tags]Flying slingshot monkey – $6.99[/tags]

Shocking story of the day

Thanks again to former cow-orker and sometimes commentor TimG for this story headline:

PlayStation 3 Sales Drop Sharply On Low Supply

Apparently, in the days following the PS3 launch, sales of the console dropped as available supply in stores went down. I guess sometimes those economists realllllly earn their pay. It is doubtful that any of us normal folks could have predicted fewer sales as fewer systems were to be found.

Sales of the PlayStation 3 console during its first full week of availability in Japan were sharply lower than those during the two days immediately following its launch, according to estimates published this week.

. . .

The sharply lower number of consoles sold is likely due to tight supply of the machines.

And there you have it. So if you are taking a course in economics, you might want to ask your professor if sales are likely to go down as supply goes down. It seems this is a trend that might hold true in other markets, and we’d hate to see you surprised in other markets.

[tags]Shocking headline of the day, Sales do not go up as number to be sold goes down[/tags]

Day of the ninja

Whoa! I almost let this one pass. By the time most of you read this, it might be too late, and many of you may well die before ever having the chance to prepare for this, but December 5th is the Official Day of the Ninja. Now Ninja’s are nowhere near as awesome as pirates, so if you choose to skip Day of the Ninja and stick to only celebrating International Talk Like a Pirate Day, I’ll understand. However, I cannot guarantee the ninjas will share my generosity. They are a stealthy, vindicate, and deadly group.

It’s time for the Annual Day of the Ninja. Forget ‘Talk Like a Pirate’ Day. This will truly be our chance to show the world what ninja are made of.

As last year (and every year from now on), December 5th is the Day of the Ninja. Plague your co-workers with ninja-ness and wear a ninja mask to work! Got the day off? Run wild in the streets, or dress like a ninja at the mall! Just show the world that YOU ARE NINJA!

For the record, you are not ninja. And unlike the pirate celebrants, you can’t even manage to imitate a ninja. I’ve seen what you eat, and I know how little you exercise. To emulate a ninja, you’d have to get all totally martial arts-fu on that wimpy ass of yours, and that’s just not going to happen. So just dress up like a ninja and hope the real ninjas don’t kill you. Which is another reason you should only celebrate International Talk Like a Pirate Day, as anyone can talk like a pirate. And doing so gains you favor with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[tags]Day of the ninja, Get all stealth like so real ninjas don’t off your lazy ass[/tags]

New views on the building of the pyramids

I’m guessing almost anyone who knows anything about the pyramids in Egypt thinks they were built via masses of slave laborers, pulling huge blocks up ramps around the structure and dragging them in to place. However, this is an often contested theory of pyramid building. Recently, The Times Online put up an article with more about what we know (or think we know) and think about how the pyramids were built. Using X-Rays, a plasma torch (no, I don’t know how that figures in to the work) and electron microscopes, scientists at the French National Aerospace Research Agency have declared there are two kinds of blocks: natural cut quarry-stone and man-made cement blocks.

Despite mounting support from scientists, Egyptologists have rejected the concrete claim, first made in the late 1970s by Joseph Davidovits, a French chemist.

The stones, say the historians and archeologists, were all carved from nearby quarries, heaved up huge ramps and set in place by armies of workers. Some dissenters say that levers or pulleys were used, even though the wheel had not been invented at that time.

. . .

The pair [behind this study] believe that the concrete method was used only for the stones on the higher levels of the Pyramids. There are some 2.5 million stone blocks on the Cheops Pyramid. The 10-tonne granite blocks at their heart were also natural, they say. The professors agree with the “Davidovits theory” that soft limestone was quarried on the damp south side of the Giza Plateau. This was then dissolved in large, Nile-fed pools until it became a watery slurry.

Unfortunately:

The concrete theorists say that they will be unable to prove their theory conclusively until the Egyptian authorities give them access to substantial samples.

I propose we have a dance-off to settle the controversy, winning dancers’ theory becomes fact!

An extra bit of interesting pyramid building trivia is available via a clickable pop-up. I really liked this theory:

A character called Seth is said to have communicated through a Ouija board that in Egypt, “people would visualise a pyramid in their imagination, then through their chanting, the use of certain vowels and picthes, they actually changed the air where that building was going to be”

Rawk 0n!!! Man, I wish I could learn the proper chants, vowels, and pitches necessary to cause air to change into a pyramid wherever I visualized it. That would sooooo help me score points with the chicks. And because this information comes from a Ouija board, you know it has to be true.

[tags]Pyramid building theories, How the pyramids were built, Ouija board and the building of the pyramids[/tags]

Analyzing paper storage breakthrough claims

ArsTechnica takes on the task of debunking the recent claims of 450+ Gig of data stored on plain paper. I remember reading originally about this fantastic new technology and something didn’t feel right about it. That’s probably a result of decades of tech interest. But I just couldn’t figure out why the claim didn’t seem to hold water. If you ever wondered if the ArsTechnica folks are really smart or just SMRT, check their brief discussion on unrealistic paper storage claims. Here are the most relevant bits, but I’m skipping a number of details from the discussion and the pretty picture.

The system allegedly works by encoding data into small geometrical shapes (circles, squares, and triangles) in various colors, then printing them out on a piece of paper. A scanner is used to read the data back in to the computer.

However, despite technological advances in scanning and printing technology since [the early days of paper storage], Abideen’s claims quite simply do not hold water. A little bit of math is in order here. Starting with a scanner with a maximum resolution of 1,200 dots per inch, this leads to a maximum of 1,440,000 dots per square inch, or just over 134 million dots on a sheet of standard 8.5″ by 11″ paper (excluding margins).

… a maximum theoretical storage of 134MB, which would likely go down to under 100MB after error correction.

Now this technology may come out, wow us all, and be the greatest storage advance in years (or decades). However, for now it has the smell of the world record python in Indonesia.

[tags]Massive paper storage tech debunked?, ArsTechnica on paper storage revoluation[/tags]

My cow-orkers

EDIT: I’ve avoided this kind of stupid post for a year on my site.  I had a particularly annoying evening with a co-worker and ranted here about the people with whom I work.  That’s never a smart thing to do.  I won’t try to pretend I didn’t rant, but I will remove the rant I foolishly posted.  Personal blogs and work gripes do not belong together.

US military deployment numbers

Here are some interesting numbers for you. This is a year by year breakdown of the total number of US military members. I’m putting up the numbers relevant to what I want to discuss. There is a very important reason I’m posting this, too. Oh, and this is probably the longest post I’ve ever done, because there is a lot to examine.

Here’s the punchline – Clinton didn’t gut the military like everyone wants Americans to believe he did. Now read the numbers and facts to see why I say this.

Continue reading “US military deployment numbers”